ensemble

KO | EN

gitlite — search

#python #hacktoberfest #react #llm #go #deep-learning #linux #docker #java #windows #awesome #vue #pytorch #open-source

(★ 10)

Multi-model consensus debate via the filesystem. LLMs propose, peer-review, rebut, vote and synthesize a group-confirmed answer. CLI + MCP.

ensemble 최신버젼 다운로드

최종 버전 다운로드 (.zip)

// repository documentation

Was this content helpful?

★ 0 (0 ratings)

# 🗳️ Ensemble

*Multi-model consensus debate via the filesystem — LLMs propose, peer-review,
rebut, vote, and synthesize a group-confirmed answer. CLI + MCP.*

![Python](https://img.shields.io/badge/python-3.10%2B-blue)
![Tests](https://img.shields.io/badge/tests-98%20passing-brightgreen)
![Lint](https://img.shields.io/badge/lint-ruff-261230)
![MCP](https://img.shields.io/badge/MCP-compatible-orange)
![Providers](https://img.shields.io/badge/providers-OpenAI%20%C2%B7%20Anthropic%20%C2%B7%20DeepSeek-555)

> **Multi-round: propose → peer-review → rebut → vote → synthesize → converge.**
> Not a one-shot poll — an auditable debate that runs until the models agree on
> a *specific answer* (or provably can't), with every step left on disk.

Multi-model consensus debate via the filesystem. Several top LLMs (OpenAI,
Anthropic, DeepSeek) independently **propose**, **review** each other, **rebut**
the critiques of their own proposal, and **vote** — and, once a majority agrees,
**synthesize** a single merged answer that the group **confirms**. They never
talk to each other directly: every contribution is a file in a shared folder,
and a coordinator advances the debate phase by phase. Participants are
**anonymized** to each other (shown only as "Participant A/B/C"), so they judge
arguments on merit, not on brand.

```mermaid
%%{init: {'theme':'neutral', 'themeVariables': {'fontSize':'22px'}, 'flowchart': {'nodeSpacing': 55, 'rankSpacing': 70, 'padding': 16}}}%%
flowchart LR
 P[PROPOSING] --> R[REVIEWING] --> B[REBUTTAL] --> V{VOTING}
 V -- "revise / split (positions still moving)" --> P
 V -- "stable disagreement or safety fuse" --> D["Best-effort answer (plurality, Borda-broken tie)"]
 V -- "majority finalize" --> S["SYNTHESIS endorsed author merges (minority views kept)"]
 S --> C{"CONFIRM APPROVE majority?"}
 C -- yes --> A1["Synthesis = consensus answer"]
 C -- "no / stall / error" --> A2["Verbatim winning proposal (today's behaviour)"]
 A1 --> F[final.md]
 A2 --> F
 D --> F
```

> Phases `PROPOSING → REVIEWING → REBUTTAL → VOTING` run every round.
> `SYNTHESIS` and `CONFIRM` run **only after a majority finalizes**; deadlocks
> skip them. Alongside its vote, each model may emit a **Borda ranking** of all
> proposals — a recorded signal that only ever decides a *plurality tie on a
> deadlock*, never a real majority.

## Highlights

- 🗳️ **Real consensus, not a poll** — convergence means a majority endorses the
  *same* proposal; otherwise the debate keeps going or provably deadlocks.
- 🎭 **Anonymized peer review** — models see each other only as "Participant A/B/C",
  so arguments win on merit, not on brand.
- 🔀 **Rebuttal phase** — each model answers the critiques of *its own* proposal
  before anyone votes, so minds can actually change.
- 🧬 **Group-confirmed synthesis** — on consensus the endorsed author merges the
  best points (minority views kept) and the group ratifies it; any failure falls
  back to the verbatim winner, so the worst case is never worse than today.
- 📊 **Borda ranking** — a richer per-model signal that breaks deadlock ties
  deterministically (adapted, with synthesis, from [karpathy/llm-council](https://github.com/karpathy/llm-council)).
- 🗂️ **Everything on disk** — every proposal, review, rebuttal, vote, and synthesis
  is a Markdown file; debates are inspectable and fully **resumable**.
- 💸 **Cost-aware** — per-model token + USD accounting, prompt caching, and a hard
  `--budget` cap.
- 🌐 **Grounding & roles** — optional web-search citations and anti-groupthink
  stances (`--ground`, `--roles diverse`).
- 🔌 **CLI + MCP** — a rich terminal UI *and* a one-tool MCP server for Claude Code,
  Cursor, Cline, Kilo, Continue, and friends.
- 🧪 **Measured, not asserted** — a real eval harness (`ensemble-eval`) with a
  strong-model baseline and per-question audit logs.

## Why filesystem?

Each model only reads and writes Markdown files. That makes every step of the
debate a durable, inspectable artifact: you can open any round and read exactly
what each model proposed, how it critiqued the others, and how it voted. A
debate is fully resumable from disk.

## Requirements

- **Python ≥ 3.10**
- API keys for **at least two** of three providers (below)
- *(optional)* a `TAVILY_API_KEY` for web-search grounding

## Install

Ensemble isn't on PyPI yet, so install it from a clone. The `[mcp]` extra also
installs the server used by the editor plugins — include it so you get
everything in one go.

```bash
git clone https://github.com/raiyanyahya/ensemble.git
cd ensemble

python -m venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate           # Windows: .venv\Scripts\activate

pip install -e ".[mcp]"             # CLI + MCP server
#   ".[mcp,dev]"  also installs pytest + ruff for development
```

This puts two commands on your `PATH`:

| Command        | What it is                                              |
| -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- |
| `ensemble`     | the CLI (`chat`, `debate`, `list`, `status`, `show`, `resume`) |
| `ensemble-mcp` | the stdio MCP server that editors/agents call           |

Verify:

```bash
ensemble --help
python -c "import mcp"    # no output = the [mcp] extra is installed
```

(Running `ensemble-mcp` launches the stdio server, which then waits for an MCP
client on stdin — that's expected; press Ctrl-C to exit. Editors start it for
you.)

## Configure API keys

Set environment variables for the providers you have (any **two** is enough):

| Provider | Env var             | Default model               |
| -------- | ------------------- | --------------------------- |
| gpt4o    | `OPENAI_API_KEY`    | `gpt-4o-mini`               |
| claude   | `ANTHROPIC_API_KEY` | `claude-haiku-4-5-20251001`  |
| deepseek | `DEEPSEEK_API_KEY`  | `deepseek-chat`             |

```bash
export OPENAI_API_KEY=...
export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=...
export DEEPSEEK_API_KEY=...   # any two of the three is enough
export TAVILY_API_KEY=...     # optional — enables web-search grounding (--ground)
```

> Put these in your shell profile (`~/.bashrc`, `~/.zshenv`) so they persist.
> Keys are read at call time and never written to disk or logged.

## Quickstart

```bash
ensemble chat                                   # interactive; type a question
# or one-shot:
ensemble debate "Postgres or DynamoDB for a write-heavy event store?" --quick
```

## Use the CLI

### Interactive (`chat`)

The quickest way in — an interactive session where the council debates each
question you type, with a live progress panel:

```bash
ensemble chat                 # quick mode by default (1 round, low latency)
ensemble chat --deep          # full multi-round debates by default
```

In-session commands: `/quick` · `/deep` · `/rounds N` · `/list` · `/help` · `/exit`.

### One-shot (`debate`)

```bash
# Run a single question to consensus (or deadlock)
ensemble debate "Is P equal to NP? Give your best honest assessment."

ensemble debate "..." --quick                 # single round, fast
ensemble debate "..." --rounds 3 --stall-timeout 180 -v
ensemble debate "..." -m claude=claude-sonnet-4-6   # override a model id

# Inspect
ensemble list # all debates
ensemble status <debate-id> # current round/phase + who has contributed
ensemble show <debate-id> # render the final consensus document
ensemble resume <debate-id> # continue an interrupted debate
```

### Controls: cost, grounding, roles

```bash
# Cost & budget — every debate reports per-model tokens + estimated $ (prompt
# caching is on, so cached tokens are billed at a discount). Cap the spend:
ensemble debate "..." --budget 0.05            # stop once est. spend hits $0.05

# Grounding & citations — web-search the prompt first; models cite [n], and the
# sources are listed in the final document (needs TAVILY_API_KEY):
ensemble debate "Latest on <topic>?" --ground

# Roles / stances — fight groupthink by assigning perspectives:
ensemble debate "..." --roles diverse          # skeptic / advocate / pragmatist
ensemble debate "..." --roles redteam          # one advocate, the rest skeptics
ensemble debate "..." --role gpt4o=skeptic --role claude="a security auditor"
```

All of these work in `ensemble chat` and via the MCP tool too (`ground`,
`budget` arguments). Cost, sources, and votes all land in `final.md`.

## Use it from your editor / agent (MCP)

`ensemble-mcp` (installed by the `[mcp]` extra above) is a stdio MCP server that
exposes one tool — `ensemble_debate(prompt, quick=true, rounds=5, models=…,
ground=false, budget=null)` — to any MCP client. Make sure your provider keys
are set in the environment the client launches it from.

### Claude Code

Install the bundled plugin (adds the `/ensemble` command **and** the tool):

```text
/plugin marketplace add /absolute/path/to/ensemble     # this repo (or raiyanyahya/ensemble on GitHub)
/plugin install ensemble@ensemble
```

Restart Claude Code, then:

```text
/ensemble Should we shard this table now or wait until 1B rows?
```

Or just ask Claude to "get the council's opinion on …" and it will call the
tool. (The plugin's `.mcp.json` forwards your `*_API_KEY` env vars to the
server.) Details: [`plugins/claude-code/`](plugins/claude-code/).

### Kilo Code

Copy [`plugins/kilo/kilo.jsonc`](plugins/kilo/kilo.jsonc) to
`~/.config/kilo/kilo.jsonc` (global) or `.kilo/kilo.jsonc` (this project), fill
in your keys, and **raise the timeout** — Kilo's 10s default aborts a debate.
Or add it via the UI: Settings → MCP → Add Server → Local (stdio), command
`ensemble-mcp`. Details: [`plugins/kilo/`](plugins/kilo/).

### Cursor / Cline / Roo / Continue / VS Code Copilot

Any MCP client takes the same stdio server — add it in that client's MCP config:

```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "ensemble": {
      "command": "ensemble-mcp",
      "env": {
        "OPENAI_API_KEY": "...",
        "ANTHROPIC_API_KEY": "...",
        "DEEPSEEK_API_KEY": "..."
      }
    }
  }
}
```

> A debate is much slower than a single call, so prefer `quick` for interactive
> use and reserve a deep debate (`quick: false`) for high-stakes decisions.

## How consensus is decided

Consensus means agreement on a **specific proposal**, not just willingness to
stop. Each voting round, every active participant casts one vote:

- **FINALIZE: \<participant\>** — endorse the single best proposal *by its label*.
- **REVISE: \<focus\>** — go another round, with a stated focus.
- **SPLIT: \<reason\>** — fundamental disagreement.

The coordinator resolves each FINALIZE to the proposal it endorses and tallies
endorsements (`majority = n // 2 + 1`). **There is no fixed round count** — the
debate runs until the participants settle it:

1. **Finalize** — a majority endorses the **same** proposal → it becomes the
   consensus answer (terminal). Three FINALIZE votes for three *different*
   proposals is **not** consensus.
2. **Stable disagreement** — if a round's votes and endorsements are identical to
   the previous round's, the participants have stopped moving → the debate
   **deadlocks**, writing the *plurality* proposal as a best-effort answer.
3. Otherwise a **revise** majority (or an unsettled **split**) starts another
   round — for as long as positions keep changing.

Two backstops bound a debate that never settles: an optional **`--budget`** cap
on spend, and a high **safety fuse** (`--rounds`, default 50) that's almost never
the actual terminator. If a provider becomes unresponsive mid-debate it's
**dropped** (as long as ≥2 live participants remain) so the debate finishes
instead of hanging; the drop is noted in `final.md`.

### Synthesis & ranking

Both ideas here are adapted from Andrej Karpathy's
[llm-council](https://github.com/karpathy/llm-council) — its **anonymous peer
ranking** and **chairman synthesis** — reworked for Ensemble's multi-round,
consensus-by-vote, filesystem model: the ranking is additive (it only breaks a
deadlock tie, never overrides a majority), and the synthesis is a *candidate the
group ratifies by vote* rather than a single chairman's verdict.

Two signals refine the outcome **without changing the rules above**:

- **Ranking (Borda).** Alongside its vote, each participant may rank all
  proposals best-to-worst (`B > C > A`). The coordinator tallies Borda points and
  records them in `final.md`. The ranking only ever *decides* anything in the one
  case the old logic left arbitrary — breaking a **plurality tie on a deadlock**;
  a real majority is always unique, so the finalize path is untouched.
- **Synthesis-as-candidate.** Once a majority finalizes, the endorsed author
  drafts a single **merged** answer that folds in the strongest points (and
  preserves minority views). Every participant then **confirms** it (APPROVE /
  REJECT). A majority APPROVE ships the synthesis as the consensus answer;
  anything else — a reject, the author erroring, or a stall — **falls back to the
  verbatim winning proposal**, i.e. exactly the previous behaviour. The verbatim
  proposals are always kept in `final.md` below the synthesis for audit. This is
  *not* a single "chairman": the merge is a candidate the group ratifies, and it
  runs only on consensus (deadlocks are unchanged).

#### Two outcomes, same prompt — both paths in the wild

Two live runs on the classic *"Which is larger, 9.11 or 9.9?"* trap landed on the
same correct answer (**9.9**) by two different legitimate routes — a neat tour of
the new machinery. (The route differs run-to-run from sampling, not from a flag.)

**Run A — cyclic endorsement → deadlock → Borda tiebreak.** All three voted
FINALIZE, but each endorsed a *different* peer, a perfect cycle:

```
GPT-4o  → endorsed DeepSeek
Claude  → endorsed GPT-4o
DeepSeek → endorsed Claude
```

Every proposal drew exactly **1/3** endorsements: agreement on the *answer*,
disagreement on whose *articulation* was best, and no majority to settle it. The
debate **deadlocked**, and the 1-1-1 tie for the best-effort answer was broken
**by Borda score** (previously arbitrary) — Claude 4 ▸ DeepSeek 3 ▸ GPT-4o 2.
Synthesis correctly did **not** run (it's finalize-only). Cost **$0.0125**.

**Run B — clean finalize → synthesis → confirm.** This time the endorsements
aligned **3/3 on DeepSeek**, so the debate finalized and the full post-consensus
path ran:

```
VOTING → FINALIZE (3/3 → DeepSeek)
  → SYNTHESIS  (DeepSeek, the winner, drafts the merge)
  → CONFIRM    {APPROVE: 3, REJECT: 0} → synthesis ACCEPTED
```

`final.md` led with the **group-confirmed synthesis** (ending `Final answer: 9.9`,
crediting each participant's strongest point), kept the verbatim proposals below
it, and ranked Borda **DeepSeek 6 ▸ Claude 3 ▸ GPT-4o 0**. The winner made 6 calls
(it authored the synthesis), the others 5; cost **$0.0183**.

Same question, same answer — one run exercised the **deadlock + Borda tiebreak**,
the other the **synthesis + confirm** path, and both handled it correctly.

## A real debate, end to end

Here's an actual run (not a mock-up). Prompt:

> *Should frontier AI labs be legally required to open-source their model weights?
> Give a yes or no and your single strongest reason.*

Three models, anonymized to each other as Participant A/B/C (**A = GPT-4o Mini,
B = Claude Haiku 4.5, C = DeepSeek** — the models never saw these names):

1. **They genuinely disagreed.** In PROPOSING, GPT-4o argued **Yes** (transparency
   and accountability); Claude and DeepSeek both argued **No** (irreversible
   misuse/weaponization risk that audits and regulation can address instead). A
   real 1-Yes / 2-No split, not three models nodding along.
2. **The rebuttal phase changed a mind.** After reading the critiques of its own
   proposal, GPT-4o conceded the security argument and floated a middle ground —
   then, in VOTING, **endorsed Claude's "No" proposal** outright, citing the
   asymmetric-risk reasoning it found persuasive. The lone dissenter was won over
   by the argument — while still blind to *whose* argument it was.
3. **Consensus, by endorsement.** Final tally: Claude's proposal endorsed **2/3**
   (by GPT-4o and DeepSeek); DeepSeek's endorsed 1/3 (by Claude). DeepSeek rated
   Claude's articulation above its own. **Consensus answer: No** — with the
   minority "Yes" still preserved in the record.

Run twice, the verdict reproduced exactly (same winner, same 2/3, same GPT-4o
flip) even at `temperature=0.7` — the prose differed each time, the *decision*
didn't. Cost of the run:

| Model | Calls | Input | Output | Cached | Est. cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-4o Mini (OpenAI)        | 4 | 6 749 | 1 028 | 0     | $0.0016 |
| Claude Haiku 4.5 (Anthropic)| 4 | 7 051 | 2 091 | 0     | $0.0175 |
| DeepSeek Chat               | 4 | 5 821 | 1 693 | 1 536 | $0.0031 |
| **Total** | | | | | **$0.0222** |

(Four calls each = propose + review + rebut + vote, one round — they converged
without needing a second. Claude dominates the cost at $1/$5 per 1M tokens and
the longest outputs.) **Note:** this run predates the synthesis step; a converged
debate now adds a synthesis call (endorsed author) plus one short confirm call
per participant — see the table in the next section.

## Artifacts on disk

Debates are stored under `~/.ensemble/debates/<debate-id>/`:

```
<debate-id>/
├── prompt.md # the question
├── state.json # full debate state (atomic, resumable) — incl. votes,
│ # Borda scores, synthesis_used, confirm tally
├── round-001/
│ ├── gpt4o.proposal.md gpt4o.review.md gpt4o.rebuttal.md gpt4o.vote.md
│ ├── claude.proposal.md claude.review.md claude.rebuttal.md claude.vote.md
│ ├── deepseek.proposal.md ... (+ <model>.<phase>.failed if a provider gave up)
│ ├── <winner>.synthesis.md # only on a finalize: the endorsed author's merge
│ └── <model>.confirm.md # each participant's APPROVE / REJECT of the synthesis
├── round-002/ ...
└── final.md # the consensus (or best-effort) answer
```

Each phase writes a **separate** file, so contributions accumulate across
phases rather than overwriting one another. A vote file may carry a `## Ranking`
line (`B > C > A`); the synthesis and confirm files appear only on the finalize
path.

## Evaluation

Does the debate actually beat a single model? `ensemble-eval` puts numbers on it:
each question is answered by every model *solo* and by the *ensemble*, graded by
extracting the model's final answer (the concluding line plus any explicit
`Final answer:` line — not a whole-text substring match, to avoid favouring
longer outputs), and tallied for accuracy and cost.

The honest verdict: **debate matches a strong single model and lifts unreliable
cheap models to that level — but it does not beat a model that is already
reliable, and it costs far more.** The runs below build to that conclusion.

### Latest validated run (15 traps, with synthesis + ranking, 2026-06-04)

After adding the post-consensus **synthesis** step and the **Borda** ranking
signal, we ran `evals/hard.jsonl` — 15 classic single-model traps (9.11 vs 9.9,
the bat-and-ball, the algae lake, "all but 9 die") where cheap models are
individually error-prone. Three cheap models as the ensemble, Claude Sonnet 4.6
as the strong baseline, one round each (`--quick`):

```
Condition            Score  Accuracy       Cost     $/correct
-------------------------------------------------------------
gpt-4o-mini          8/15     53.3%   $ 0.0001    ~$0.00001
claude-haiku-4.5    14/15     93.3%   $ 0.0013    ~$0.0001
deepseek-chat       15/15    100.0%   $ 0.0002    ~$0.00001
-------------------------------------------------------------
BASELINE (sonnet)   15/15    100.0%   $ 0.0058    ~$0.0004
-------------------------------------------------------------
ENSEMBLE            15/15    100.0%   $ 0.2923    ~$0.0195
```

- **The mechanism works.** On *Monday + 100 days → ?*, gpt-4o-mini said Thursday
 and Claude said Friday (both wrong); only DeepSeek had Wednesday. **Two of three
 cheap models were individually wrong, yet the ensemble landed on Wednesday** —
 and the endorsed proposal was *Claude's*, which **revised to the correct answer**
 through review→rebuttal before the vote. Cross-examination corrected an
 individual error; the wrong majority didn't win.
- **Synthesis verbosity vs. graders (found and fixed).** In the first pass the
 ensemble scored 14/15: the bat-and-ball debate reached *unanimous-correct*
 consensus ("the ball costs 5 cents"), but the verbose synthesis *ended* on a
 caveat about the wrong intuitive answer ("…totaling $1.20"), so the last-line
 extractor missed it. The fix instructs the synthesis to close with a
 `Final answer: <value>` line in the requested format — gradable, and clearer for
 a human. The re-run scored **15/15**.
- **The honest caveat.** DeepSeek alone already went 15/15 here, so the ensemble
 **tied** the best cheap single and the strong baseline rather than beating
 them — at **~50× the baseline's cost**. Debate buys *reliability*, not a higher
 ceiling, and only earns its keep when no single available model is already
 reliable. (N = 15, single pass; gpt-4o-mini drifted 10→8 between passes on the
 traps, a reminder these are noisy small-sample numbers.)

### Earlier: the harder run (72 objective questions, single pass)

*This is the run that motivated the work above — kept for the full story.*

`evals/harder.jsonl` is 72 auto-gradeable questions across six categories
(multi-step math, logic, counting/strings, factual edge cases, traps,
arithmetic). Every computable answer is re-derived and asserted in
`evals/build_harder.py`, so a typo'd key fails at build time. We added a **strong
single-model baseline** (Claude Sonnet 4.6) as the comparison that actually
matters — "three cheap models debating" vs "one strong model answering once."

```
Condition            Score  Accuracy       Cost     $/correct
-------------------------------------------------------------
gpt-4o-mini         65/72     90.3%   $ 0.0008    ~$0.00001
claude-haiku-4.5    64/72     88.9%   $ 0.0073    ~$0.0001
deepseek-chat       67/72     93.1%   $ 0.0011    ~$0.00002
-------------------------------------------------------------
BASELINE (sonnet)   70/72     97.2%   $ 0.0247    ~$0.0004
-------------------------------------------------------------
ENSEMBLE            30/72     41.7%   $ 0.6893    ~$0.023
```

Taken at face value the ensemble is a disaster — last place, at ~28× the cost of
the strong baseline. **But that headline is an artifact of one failure mode, not
of bad reasoning:**

- **40 of 72 debates stalled** (38 in voting, 2 in reviewing) and hit the 120 s
  timeout, returning a "no consensus" placeholder that scores wrong. Stalled
  debates were **2.4 %** correct; that single bucket *is* the 41.7 %.
- **On the 31 debates that did converge, the ensemble scored 93.5 %** — and on
  that same subset the cheap singles scored *lower* (gpt-4o 83.9 %, haiku 77.4 %,
  deepseek 87.1 %), while Sonnet also scored 93.5 %. So when the debate actually
  runs, it lifts three cheap models to strong-model accuracy.

### What we can and can't conclude

- We **cannot** yet claim debate beats (or loses to) a single model, because
  this run was gated by a **vote-parsing bug** (since fixed — see below). The
  41.7 % is not a measure of debate quality.
- The "converged" subset is **selection-biased** (questions where models readily
  agree) and small (N = 31), so its 93.5 % is suggestive, not a verdict.
- These questions are **easier than intended**: modern cheap models already clear
  ~90 %, leaving little headroom for debate to demonstrate value. A genuinely
  hard, low-baseline set is needed to see the effect cleanly.

The encouraging signal (debate ≈ strong model, > cheap singles *when it
converges*) only becomes a real claim once convergence is reliable.

### Root cause of the stalls (found and fixed)

Auditing the 41 non-consensus debates via the per-question log pinned the cause
precisely: **45 of 138 vote files contained a valid directive but no `## Vote`
header.** Models obey the instruction "your vote MUST be the first line" and emit
`FINALIZE: Participant B` directly, sometimes dropping the `## Vote` wrapper. The
parser only harvested a vote from a `## Vote` section, so those votes were
silently lost — and because the agent's API call *succeeded*, it wrote no failure
sentinel, leaving the coordinator to wait for a vote that was physically present
but invisible until the 120 s timeout.

The fix makes vote parsing tolerant of a missing/garbled header (recovering the
unwrapped directive line) while `for_phase` still prevents a stray directive in a
non-voting phase from being counted early. Re-parsing the recorded run with the
fix, **all 137 of those vote files now parse, and 45/46 stalled debates would
have reached a vote.** A clean full re-run is the immediate next step before
making any debate-vs-model claim.

### Earlier: when does debate actually add value?

With convergence fixed, we went looking for the case that would justify the cost:
a question where the cheap models are individually unreliable, so debate has
something to correct. Probing all three cheap models (gpt-4o-mini, Haiku,
DeepSeek) on **30 hard, objective problems** turned up a striking fact: **not one
problem stumped all three.** Their errors are *uncorrelated* — each fails on
different questions — so for every problem at least one model was right. (This
also bounds the upside: debate can't invent an answer no member can reach.)

The sharp test, then, is what happens when the lone correct model is *outvoted*
by confidently-wrong peers. On three such problems (a factorial sum, a
squares-or-cubes count, and a cryptarithm), run 3× each:

```
Condition            Score   where ≥2/3 cheap models were individually wrong
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
gpt-4o-mini          0/9
claude               8/9     Ensemble stayed correct in 7/7 such debates.
deepseek             3/9
BASELINE (sonnet)    9/9
ENSEMBLE             9/9     (+11 pts over the best cheap single; ties Sonnet)
```

The ensemble went **9/9, beating the best cheap single** — and the per-question
log shows *why*: on the squares-or-cubes problem only Haiku could solve it solo,
yet in the debate the other two (wrong on their own) read its work and **endorsed
the correct answer**; on the cryptarithm, models that failed solo produced
*correct* proposals once reasoning through propose → review → rebuttal. A wrong
majority did **not** drag the group to a wrong answer in any of the 9 debates.
So debate's value is real and mechanistic: cross-examination corrects individual
errors, not just tallies votes.

**The honest caveat:** a single strong model (Sonnet) also went 9/9, at **~1/6th
the ensemble's cost** ($0.0032 vs $0.018 per correct answer). Debate *matched* the
strong model but never beat it. The defensible conclusion:

- **Debate > best single _cheap_ model** on hard, error-prone problems — genuine,
  mechanism-backed value.
- **Debate ≈ single _strong_ model** on accuracy, at ~6× the cost.
- So debate earns its keep as a way to get **strong-model reliability out of weak
  or diverse models** — not as a way to beat a strong model you could just call
  directly.

(Sample size here is small — 9 debates over 3 questions — a clean signal with a
visible mechanism, but a ≥30-question "cheap-models-unreliable" set is needed to
make it a firm claim.)

### Reproduce

```bash
pip install -e .
export OPENAI_API_KEY=... ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=... DEEPSEEK_API_KEY=...

# the latest validated run (15 single-model traps):
ensemble-eval --dataset evals/hard.jsonl --models gpt4o,claude,deepseek \
  --baseline sonnet --delay 2 --stall-timeout 120 --log run.jsonl

# or the larger 72-question set:
ensemble-eval --dataset evals/harder.jsonl --models gpt4o,claude,deepseek \
  --baseline sonnet --delay 2 --stall-timeout 120 --log run.jsonl
```

`--log` writes one JSONL record per question (every condition's answer, outcome,
cost, and the debate's end status + reason) so any result can be audited and the
stalls inspected. `--baseline` accepts any provider key; `sonnet` is registered
purely as an eval baseline and never joins the default ensemble.

## Development

```bash
pip install -e ".[dev]"
pytest            # unit + end-to-end (no network; providers are stubbed)
ruff check .
```

The end-to-end test in `tests/test_flow.py` drives the real coordinator and
agent loops with fake providers and asserts the full debate converges with all
proposal content preserved.

## Robustness notes

- **Atomic writes** — `state.json` and contribution files are written to a temp
  file and `os.replace`d, so a polling reader never sees a torn file.
- **Retries** — provider calls retry transient failures (429 / 5xx / network)
  with exponential backoff, honoring `Retry-After`.
- **No infinite hangs** — if a phase makes no progress within `--stall-timeout`
  seconds (e.g. a provider is down), the debate ends in a graceful deadlock.
- **Tolerant vote parsing** — a vote is recovered even when the model omits the
  `## Vote` header and emits a bare `FINALIZE: …` / `REVISE: …` / `SPLIT: …`
  line, so a present-but-unwrapped vote can't silently stall the debate. The same
  tolerance covers a bare `APPROVE` / `REJECT` in the confirm phase.
- **Synthesis never undoes consensus** — once a majority finalizes, any failure,
  stall, or rejection in the `SYNTHESIS`/`CONFIRM` phases falls back to the
  verbatim winning proposal. The worst case equals the pre-synthesis behaviour;
  the merged answer is strictly an upside the group can decline.
- **Prompt caching** — the stable system prompt is marked as an Anthropic cache
  breakpoint; OpenAI and DeepSeek cache prefixes automatically. Cached tokens
  are billed at a discount and counted separately in the cost report.
- **Cost accounting** — token usage is captured per call into `*.usage.json`
  sidecars, tallied into `state.json`, and summarized (with estimated $) in
  `final.md`. `--budget` stops the debate before the next round if exceeded.

## Acknowledgments

The **synthesis** and **peer-ranking** steps are adapted from Andrej Karpathy's
[llm-council](https://github.com/karpathy/llm-council), which pioneered the
pattern of multiple LLMs answering, ranking each other *anonymously*, and a
chairman synthesizing a final response. Ensemble reworks those ideas into a
multi-round, consensus-by-vote debate on the filesystem: ranking is an additive
Borda signal (deadlock tiebreak only), and the synthesis is a group-confirmed
candidate rather than a single chairman's call.

ensemble

ensemble 최신버젼 다운로드

오늘의 추천 프로젝트

Was this content helpful?

Recent Feedback

ensemble

ensemble 최신버젼 다운로드

오늘의 추천 프로젝트

Was this content helpful?

Recent Feedback

Download README